03-0177
03-0177
Page 1of Transportation U.S. Department 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Research and AUG 5 2003 Mr. Donald Brittingham Ref. No: 03-0177 Vice President P.O. Box 6047 A.I.D., Inc. Wilmington, DE 19804 Dear Mr. Brittingham: This is in response to your July 16, 2003 letter requesting clarification of the requirements in § 172.802(a)(3) in the Hazardous Material Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask to what extent must a shipper go to ensure that a carrier's security plan is adequate. carriers to address en route security risks for the materials covered by the security plan. In some As we suggested in the preamble to the HIM-232 final rule, we expect shippers to work with separate security plans. The regulation provides the flexibility necessary to enable shippers and cases, a shipper and carrier may have a joint plan; in others, a shipper and carrier may have two carriers to determine the best methods for addressing en route security issues. A shipper should satisfy itself that the carrier that will be transporting its material has a security plan in place that adequately addresses the assessed security risks of the material to be transported, including risks related to storage of the material during transportation. Our website, at http://hazmat.dot.gov/hmt_security.htm, includes a variety of information and guidance to assist persons in complying with the new security regulations. For example, we have developed a risk management self-evaluation framework to assist companies with using risk assessment methodology to identify points in the transportation process where security procedures should be enhanced. A guidance brochure is available that includes specific measures a company may want to consider to enhance transportation security. A computer-based security awareness CD-ROM that can be used to satisfy the security awareness training requirements in § 172.704(a)(4), is available to the public at no charge; it can be downloaded rom our website or ordered on-line or by calling the Office of Hazardous Materials Training and Initiatives at 202-366-4900. I hope this satisfies your request. state z. Niterest Hattie L. Mitchell, Chief Regulatory Review and Reinvention Office of Hazardous Materials Standards 172,803 030177 800N200000C1#
Page 2JUL-22-2003 12:05 AM p.92 Al.D., Inc. P. O. Box 6047 1-302-743-2835 Mimington, DE 18804 Betts 1-302-894-4211 Fax §172.802 (3) July 21, 2003 Security Plans Nir. Edward T. Mazzullo 03-0177 Director, OMon of Hazardous Materíals Standards U.S. DOT/RSPA (OHM-10) Washington, DC 20580-0001 4007* Street S. W. Dear Sir. I am requesting a written answer (Interpretation) to what appears to be a contradiction between comments made by your office in public forums. what the New Securtly Regulation (HM-232) Implies in 49 CFR 172.802 (3) quoted below and "En route seculty. Measures to address the assessed securtty risks of shipments of hazardous Regulatory Quote: materials covered by the security plan en route from origin to destination, Including shipments stored Incidental to movement." Since the regulation does not distinguish between shipper and carter responsibilties reading the plan. consideration and include in their plan some form of risk analysis for all Ilsted product groups from the especlally the quoted passage above one can assume the plan requires both partles to take into time they are loaded to the time they are received by the customer. transportation security plan any risk/securlty analysis assessment on its outbound shipments Public forum comments made by members of your staff clalm a shipper may exclude from its security plan in place and said plan includes a proper risk analysis covering the shipper's bayond its gate, if it can verlfy in writing that all carriers transporting its matertals have a written products? to make sure the carers plan is adequate? If they can, to what depths must the shipper go, beyond the written certification mentioned above, Sincerely, Onel Bette V/President Donald Brittingham#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.